Presentation on theme: "Terrain and Obstacle Databases Working Group (TOD WG)"— Presentation transcript:
1 Terrain and Obstacle Databases Working Group (TOD WG) ADQ implementation workshopAlexandre PetrovskyEurocontrol28 May 2013
2 TOD WG ObjectivesFacilitate and coordinate TOD implementation in ECAC taking into account operational requirements and applicationsCollate, analyse and identify causes of difficulties arising during TOD implementation in the StatesDevelop and recommend action to resolve these difficultiesAdvise EUROCONTROL (AIM/SWIM Team) and ICAO on TOD implementation.
5 Status of TOD Area 1 and 4 implementation TOD Area 1 (2008) : Checks: Availability Terrain dataset Blue: Availability Obstacle datasetTOD Area 4 (2008): Dark Green: Completed Yellow: PartialGrey: No CAT II/III RWY
6 Implementation drivers Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) / Minimum Safety Altitude Warning (MSAW)Instrument Flight Procedure DesignAdvanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control systems (A-SMGCS)Aeronautical Charts / On-board DBFlight simulator, obstacle managementSynthetic Vision System
8 TOD requirements in ADQ IR Article 2 Scope1. …It shall apply to the following aeronautical data and aeronautical information:…electronic obstacle data, or elements thereof, where made available by Member States;electronic terrain data, or elements thereof, where made available by Member States;2. This Regulation shall apply to the following parties:…;public or private entities providing, for the purposes of this Regulation:iii) electronic terrain data; and iv) electronic obstacle data
9 - electronic obstacle/terrain data, or elements thereof, where made available by Member States ICAOorADQ?
10 Example Area 1 obstacle dataset completeness Area 1 obstacles collected prior to TOD requirements,published in ENR 5.4 “Air Navigation (En-Route)Obstacles”Difficulties obtaining metadata for obstacles existingprior to TODOptions:Don’t provide – no metadataProvide – caveat for missing metadataUser perspective: “better to have something rather than nothing”TOD WG conclusion: obstacle datasets for Area 1 (the minimum being the data published in ENR 5.4) could be provided with clear documentation on missing/unknown values and with a statement about associated liabilities.
12 Other issues related to ADQ Providers outside aviation areaTerrain/Obstacles datasets provider:National Geodetic AgencyMilitary authorityNumber of data originators for obstaclesTerrain data set formatNo common format definedTOD WG action: Compile a list of user and provider preferences for terrain data formats
13 Terrain dataset format: TOD WG analysis Analysed formats: GeoTIFF, DTED, USGS DEM, ESRI Grid, ASCII Grid, Raw binary, ASCII XYZ, City GML, Shape, TIN etc.None fully met ISO series requirements as required by ICAO and ADQBut, all formats could be used by the existing GIS for the exchange of data.Next-intended user’s preferred format:GeoTIFF & Metadata
14 TOD implementation advances in ECAC Identified issues related to ADQ : SummaryTOD implementation advances in ECACIdentified issues related to ADQ :Reluctance to ‘make available’ TOD due to additional ADQ requirementsbetter to have no data or partly compliant data?example with Area 1 obstacle completenessADQ requirements for non-aviation TOD providers‘fit-for-purpose’ requirements?Terrain formatsUser most preferred format